Skip to comments.Federal government responds to Montana Firearms Freedom Act
Posted on 01/22/2010 6:59:46 AM PST by Still Thinking
The United States government has filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Montana Shooting Sports Association and the Second Amendment Foundation. The suit was filed the support the Montana Firearms Freedom Act which declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.
The argument is that the Federal government has overstepped its authority in attempting to regulate and tax firearms that never cross a state border. The Feds counter that it is a valid exercise of commerse power because even sales of firearms that don't cross state lines have an effect on interstate commerce.
This Motion to Dismiss is the first response in what is expected to be a long hard fight by both sides and is just one battle in a larger struggle for increased State's Rights. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming have all introduced similar bills and nearly a dozen states have movements underway to follow.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Thanks for posting. I wondered what was happening with the movement...
Let’s wake up the 10th Amendment!
I’m proud that AZ has finally moved from the “intending” to “introduced” column. I’ll have to check to see if they’ve included a provision like the New Hampshire bill criminalizing attempts by employees or agents of the fed to enforce the laws being repudiated.
” a valid exercise of commerse(sic) power”
Bull! They use that excuse far too often.
Maybe they should spend more time in spelling class and less time in our business.
Yet another bad idea that came out of the FDR administration that has previously been supported by the courts.
Just because it has an effect on interstate commerce, it is not interstate commerce. That is equivalent to saying that the US government can regulate trade between the Middle East and China, as it could affect interstate commerce.
The time is now...this peach is ripe and ready for pickin’... States rights must be strictly enforced by the people.
Finger in the feds’ eye ping!
You ARE just posting that for background and not to say this movement is out-of-line, right? If not, see Dred Scott and Barron.
SCOTUS just ruled that corporations are people and their money is speech. Let's see if they'll revisit the definitions of interstate commerce as a result of this case.
These people are after power, and will define any law in ways that they can get it. They will fight against State powers every step of the way.
I thought states rights/laws trumpet federal law unless it’s unconstitutional?
I predict Montana loses this round.
Oh, good. I didn’t mean to be overly suspicious, but I’ve actually seen Freepers say that Wickard is the law of the land and we can’t do anything that would run afoul of it.
Great Page! thanks!
It might be a Pyrrhic victory for the feds. They get the ruling they want, but it just pisses off freedom lovers and state legislatures even more.
Besides, there’s the never-addressed conflict of interest issue. How many states are going to view as illegitimate the ruling of a branch of the federal government, in favor of the federal government? Perhaps state vs. fed issues should be decided by a panel of jurists from other states.
Your link doesn’t work for me.
Of course, the whole idea of the SCOTUS using case law as precedent is contrary to The Constitution's intent. Then again, the statists don't recognize The Constitution, anyway...
Unfortunately, we cannot count on Justice Scalia to uphold the Constitution on this. He voted correctly in the Lopez decision, but then, the War on some Drugs got the best of him and the Constitution with the Raich decision, where he voted that the Commerce clause included virtually everything.
Here is an article about it:
McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance was once law of the land also.... This could get VERY interesting, and if OBAMA and CO. doesn’t stop inhaling and back off his assault on our nation, it may happen sooner rather than later and make this week look like the beginning of an avalanche come to bury them. So be it! Hope there are many more unConstitutional messes brought before the Supremes. We still have the majority on our side. (5-4 still wins, thank God!)
They do use that argument far to often... but I don’t think they’ve figured out that their use of it is a double edge sword. It will come back to haunt them sooner than they realize.
Good article. Succinct.
“he Commerce clause included virtually everything.”
That’s the major problem.
Long over due for over turning that one. Too much judicial idiocy has been meted out as “justice” because of it.
More like the feds will proclaim that Montana loses. Whether or not they actually do depends on the people and State officials of Montana. If the State of Montana is willing to actually defend the rights of the people they will tell the feds "NO, WE REALLY MEAN IT" and any agents sent to enforce their federal proclamation will be jailed.
Tenth Amendment and all that
We will see if Montana is serious about this.
John Paul Stevens full well understands the original intent of the Constituion...yet he choses to ignore it.... Why...he is beyond its reach...don't ya know.
Montana's bill doesn't explicitly criminalize continued federal efforts to enforce their laws (the bill New Hampshire is considering does!), but they might still be able to do so based on violating civil rights under color of authority or something like that.
Very good point. But somehow, the feds must be reined in! Over-regulation must stop.
It’s the New York dont-waste-your-Times
“SCOTUS just ruled that corporations are people and their money is speech.”
And they were wrong. A corporation is not speaking for all the people just a select few and their huge war chests can swat a true member of WE THE PEOPLE like a bug.
Just another 5-4 100% political decision based on the “Constitution is a living document” crappola.
This is the only real solution...defang by making any federal enforcement official criminally liable in any case where a state's constution or the civil rights of its citizens are violated.
I mean arrested on the spot and given a speedy trial....then and only then will they drop the "I'm a federal agent and I can do anything attitude...".
Southwest Airlines began offering unregulated fares in Texas in the 70s based on that principle. They won when challenged.
When a Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reidsky, or Obamy can deal a company a death-blow (dictate winners and losers), why should it be barred from defending itself?
The best defense is to develop and train a large enough jury pool to thwart prosecutors through nullification on gun issues.
With the government fingers (and money) in so many large corporations, I have to admit I am concerned about corporate money being used to elect politicians who will give them my money. Worse yet would be use of my money they already got to participate politically in the election of corporate welfare proponents.
How would you go about that? Prosecutors and judges try to use voir dire to eliminate any jurors who are aware of their right to nullify, so unless you educate 99% of the population, enough to make it impossible to impanel a jury without them, you'll have trouble if your idea is that they do this openly. If you educate 10%, and they keep their mouth shut, and don't reveal what they're doing even during deliberations, it might work. But then, they might get thrown out and replaced with the alternate for "refusing to deliberate".
Excellent point....yet, it is my opinion that this bumbling el presidente and his socialist minions have taught many Americans a lesson in gubment in economics... It don't work!
My concern is that the big lesson is ahead. It's like watching a head-on car crash in slow motion....
The good news is the companies supposedly saved by Obamy and buddies deserve the Jonestown Juice.
Could be the spark needed for CW II.
I am thinking that the feds are terrified of the idea that hundreds of small businesses could spring forth ..... and all of them would be in-state firearm manufacturers. I love the idea!
Corporations are not owned by the people. Corporations are owned by some people. Most stock that is bought and sold isn't voting stock.
The biggest problem I have with corporatism is that corporations are given the same rights that people are. That cheapens the rights that we have. The people's rights come from God. A corporations rights don't. So no matter how wonderful the corporation, my rights trump theirs. Sadly, this is not reflected in law.
It also confuses some otherwise clear thinking elected officials. They gave corporations the rights they have, so they can take them away. Sometimes they get confused and think that means they can take rights away from the people too.
Replace "firearms" with any other product and you see that they can claim they control EVERYTHING.
I am interested......
You know what I mean't... I will always err on the side of freedom...and limited government....NO EXCEPTIONS...exceptions are the termites that eat away freedom slowly.
hmmm, there’s that ‘don’t have standing’ phrase again....